Language Learning: How Input and Output Work Together

1. The Two Pillars of Mastering a Language

When we learn a language, we do so to speak it. Language acquisition and language production are both essential for mastering a language.

Two main hypotheses focus on these aspects: The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982) and the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985).

Krashen (1982) viewed language acquisition as a result of receiving comprehensible input that is slightly beyond the learner's current level of competence in a low-anxiety environment, which allows the brain to acquire the language naturally.

While brilliant at describing how languages are learned, the Input Hypothesis treated language production merely as a product of learning. Merrill Swain (1985) argued that input alone was insufficient and that output was not just a result of input, but could be a cause of learning itself.

Swain (1985) identified three main functions of output: the noticing function (where learners identify gaps in their knowledge when they cannot fully express their thoughts), the hypothesis-testing function (where learners try out words and grammar rules to see if they are correct, refining them through feedback), and the metalinguistic function (where learners reflect on how the language works). In summary, as Steve Kaufmann said, it is about identifying "gaps between what we want to say and what we're able to say" (Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve, 2016).

2. Finding the Balance in Practice

Some people might say that these two theories are in opposition, each trying to prove it is more important than the other. I believe they complement each other perfectly. As I said at the beginning, we need both to master a language properly. The key is to find a balance between input and output and to understand the role of each in language learning.

Personally, I think input is more important at an early stage, especially for young learners. Just as we cannot draw water from a dry well, our brains cannot produce language that has not been put there in the first place. Steve Kaufmann made an interesting point in his video – the amount of language we engage with is much higher in input than in output; therefore, input provides more opportunities to learn new vocabulary and grammar (Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve, 2016). Another point is that output requires interaction, a conversation with another person. If there is no one to talk to, how can we communicate and get the feedback that is supposed to help us improve? Many people learn languages by themselves in the comfort of their homes, primarily through input, and this approach can work for them. I am sure that if an opportunity presents itself, they will go and try to practice their output.

Also important for output are timing and environment. We need to understand that a learner should be ready to talk and feel free and safe to express their thoughts. Forcing a person to speak will create anxiety and stress, which in turn affects their output. "Spoken competence is [...] the most fragile and volatile. We all know how articulate, erudite and focussed we can be when sitting in a relaxed group of friends and putting the world to rights. But can we do the same in front of an audience? [...] Or when we're tired, unwell, in or out of love? Every human factor affects our ability to use even our mother tongue competently and all these factors are carried over into second language contexts" (T-Kit No.2 - Methodology in Language Learning, 2006, p. 9). Krashen (1982) introduced the concept of the "affective filter," which blocks language from being acquired, and I think this concept can be applied to output as well – when we are stressed, we cannot effectively produce language either.

3. Theories in a Modern World

When I look at these two theories, I cannot help but notice that they both originated in the 1980s. This raises some questions: How has the language learning environment changed, and are these theories still applicable? I think both are still valid. No matter what, we are still human beings, and our brains still go through the same processes of learning languages and using them to communicate. However, there has been a shift in focus regarding form and accuracy. We now live in a world where English is used mostly by non-native speakers; people do not need perfect grammar to understand each other. They pay less attention to speaking perfect English and more to communicating meaningfully (Canagarajah, 2007). The Output Hypothesis focuses on correction and gap-noticing that happens through output, with a lot of emphasis on grammar and structure. I think correction and gap-noticing are still relevant, but nowadays the focus is shifting toward meaning. Two people speaking to each other might let grammatical mistakes pass but would pay attention to understanding the general idea of the conversation.

4. Technology’s Role in Learning

We live in a world where comprehensible input is available 24/7. We can expose ourselves to all different languages and all types of information whenever we want – it is as if the power of learning has been given to the learner. I find this quite fascinating. I can easily find a video that explains a complicated chemistry topic I could not grasp in school, presenting it in simple, understandable language so I can learn it in five minutes.

Another recent change that has affected language learning is the widespread use of AI. It can definitely create a stress-free environment for those who are scared of asking questions, being corrected, or being misunderstood in public. It is always available, can provide instant feedback, and can explain grammar rules or word usage in a comprehensible way without the learner feeling judged. However, we must remember that AI is a tool for practice that can prepare learners for real human interaction, not a substitute for it.

Our world and societies evolve and change, and the way we perceive and learn languages adapts to these changes. A hundred years ago, most people did not find it necessary to learn languages. Fifty years ago, people wanted to achieve native-like proficiency while being stuck in classrooms doing drills and direct translation. Now, people can speak multiple languages and focus on delivering the meaning over form, and they have an endless amount of resources to help them learn. What is next? Maybe someone will create a computer chip that could be implanted in our brains, allowing us to understand any language so we no longer have to learn them. I guess we’ll have to see it for ourselves.

5. Your Thoughts

To conclude this article, I am going to leave you with two questions and would like to hear your ideas and thoughts.

1. How do you think the input and output theories created 40 years ago reflect our current state of language learning?

2. How does our advancement in technology affect learning languages today, and where could it take us?

 

References:

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 921-937.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.

Steve Kaufmann - lingosteve. (2016, April 17). Merrill Swain’s output hypothesis [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPw7db6D9pY

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, Susan; Carolyn, Madden (eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

T-Kit No.2 - Methodology in language learning. (2006).

 

AI tools (DeepSeek) were used for checking grammar, punctuation and the APA layout; all content was researched and composed by the author

A Drummer With One Hand: Are We Assessing Multilingual Children Fairly?

When I watched a video of Ofelia García lecturing on translanguaging, one thought left me puzzled. She argued that by assessing a multilingual child in only one language, we are assessing less than half of their repertoire, unfairly disadvantaging them compared to monolingual children who are assessed in their entire language repertoire. She compared this to assessing two drummers: “someone plays with two hands, the other one only plays with one, and you're thinking that the sound has to be the same” (MuDiLe 2017, 2017, 10:46-10:57).

At first, I strongly disagreed. I didn't understand why a person who speaks two languages was being compared to a drummer using only one hand. If we continue the musical instrument metaphor, I see speaking multiple languages as being able to play multiple instruments. Each learned language brings something new, expanding cognitive functions and abilities. From this perspective, when we assess only one language, we are assessing proficiency in one specific instrument, seemingly placing everyone in equal conditions.

To give another example: it is like when we want to study abroad, we must prove our proficiency in the language of instruction. The institution will not give us extra credit for our other languages; they will only assess our ability in the one required for academic success.

However, after further reflection on García's point, I realized she was focusing her lecture specifically on children, particularly language minority children in the context of U.S. immigrants. Understanding that these children are already in a stressful situation, forced to quickly adapt and learn a new language, helped me understand her "drummer" metaphor. I think this also applies to children learning English in their home countries. It takes years to master a new language, and if we test new learners solely in the target language, we risk misjudging their actual knowledge. It is well known that listening comprehension develops long before speaking. As Stephen Krashen stated, beginning to speak is not the start of language acquisition (Mark Rounds, 2010).

If we take that into account, along with the principles of translanguaging, we should shift our focus from assessing pure linguistic accuracy of young learners in one language to evaluating a student's overall communicative competence and conceptual understanding. This means creating assessments that allow learners to demonstrate their knowledge using their full linguistic repertoire, ensuring we are measuring their intellect and comprehension, not just their proficiency in a single code.

In my class, if I ask my students something and they reply in a mix of English and their L1, or just in their L1, I see it as an achievement. It means they understand what I am saying and are confidently using their full language resources to communicate. With them being just four years old, that is more than enough.

 

References:

MuDiLe 2017. (2017, October 11). Ofelia García - Translanguaging [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1CcrRrck0

Mark Rounds. (2010, October 15). Stephen Krashen on Language Acquisition [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTsduRreug

AI tools (DeepSeek) were used for checking grammar, punctuation and the APA layout; all content was researched and composed by the author

Is Translanguaging Just Repackaged Code-Switching?

1. Two Names for One Phenomenon?

When I was first introduced to the term "translanguaging," I was confused. I came across an article that described it as a practice where "... people are using resources from different languages together, with very little regard for what we might call the 'boundaries' of named languages [...]. They are using elements of each language together to communicate more effectively. [...] it's about using all your language resources to communicate" (Eal_Journal, 2016, para. 3).

To me, this sounded exactly like the concept of code-switching. How were they truly different?

A common analogy is often presented to clarify this for those who are puzzled with the same question. Code-switching is said to view languages as separate systems, like two or more distinct toolboxes. A speaker consciously chooses which toolbox to open based on the context or the person they are speaking with (Han, 2015). In contrast, translanguaging claims that multilinguals have a single, integrated linguistic repertoire from the start – one large toolbox – from which they strategically select the best "tools" to communicate (García & Wei, 2014).

However, this analogy doesn't make the distinction any clearer for me. Why can't we simply consider those separate toolboxes (as in code-switching) as stored in one large warehouse – a unifying system – with the language user freely drawing whatever is needed from any of them? From this perspective, code-switching would look exactly like translanguaging describing the same fundamental behaviour. It seems like the new concept is simply reshuffling the core components of the old one and presenting them in a different package.

It reminds me of two people standing facing each other and pointing in one direction. For one, it's to the left; for the other, it's to the right. They argue, yet they are both essentially correct, simply describing the same thing from opposite viewpoints (Przymus, 2023).

Personally, I see translanguaging and code-switching as interchangeable terms. I believe it is a matter of perspective and personal choice which concept one sees as the correct one. Both terms describe the same phenomenon with an identical outcome, and both celebrate a learner's skill. Translanguaging, for instance, views bilinguals as having "one linguistic repertoire with features that are strategically deployed" (García & Kleyn, 2016, p. 15), while code-switching frames it as a "skilled selection of the correct code" (Gardner-Chloros, 2009, p. 4). As linguist Kim Potowski explains, code-switching is not a random mix but a skilled practice: "Linguists know that [code-switching] is absolutely rule-governed behavior. You can't switch willy-nilly at any point in the sentence that you want. We also know that code-switching requires very strong levels of syntax in order to not violate the structures of either language as you're going back and forth, so it requires high degrees of bilingualism to do this" (Potowski, 2013, 13:53-14:12).

Ultimately, I think both terms describe the incredible ability of the human brain to operate multiple languages flawlessly. Whatever we call it, it is still brilliant.

2. Implications of Translanguaging

While the theoretical debate is interesting, the more important question is: what are the practical implications of this new concept for teaching?

First, translanguaging is a powerful tool for affirming linguistic human rights and preserving marginalized languages. This includes languages spoken by immigrant communities, which may be majority languages in their home countries but become oppressed and silenced due to the desire to assimilate in a new environment. As Kim Potowski (2013) mentions, the shift from speaking heritage language to monolingual English use usually happens within one or two generations of immigrants in the USA, leading future generations to lose their ancestral tongue and linguistic heritage. As García and Flores (2012) note, multilingual pedagogies have the "potential for education to revitalize languages that had been oppressed," which is crucial for minority language groups (p. 235).

Second, translanguaging is an effective strategy for content learning in subjects like geography, math, and chemistry. As Potowski (2013) argues, learning a subject in an incomprehensible language only leads to creating a gap in learning which grows bigger year after year. Allowing students to access complex information and discuss concepts in their stronger language prevents the creation of those gaps, provides necessary scaffolding, and creates the comprehensible input essential for mastering content, not just language (Krashen, 1982).

Third, translanguaging can significantly aid language acquisition itself. Often thought as beneficial for learning languages, monolingual classroom environment creates stressful and disadvantageous learning space where students can feel isolated and limited to express their abilities and knowledge (Cummins, 2007; García & Sylvan, 2011). On the other hand, "a plurilingual approach ... – one that embraces diversity and encourages awareness of heritage languages – not only improves psychological wellbeing, but helps [children] learn English faster" (Guardian, 2022). This creates a supportive, stress-free environment which lowers the mental barriers to acquisition – the concept of the "affective filter" that was described by Krashen (1982).

Fourth, this approach also fosters cross-cultural understanding. For example, when teaching Chinese children about families, I learned that Mandarin has distinct words for "older brother" (哥哥 gēge) and "younger brother" (弟弟 dìdi). Furthermore, due to the former one-child policy, many children assign the role of siblings to their cousins. This knowledge helped me interpret their answers accurately and respect their cultural reality. Similarly, in Russian, there are two different words for "married" depending on the spouse's gender, which would cause confusion in a direct translation task without context. Understanding these nuances allows teachers to anticipate challenges, adjust instruction, and facilitate better learning, showing students that their linguistic heritage is welcomed.

3. Finding Balance 

There is no argument that translanguaging has a lot of benefits. My problem with it is that the way it’s presented and described sounds like a political stance. I understand where it comes from – scholars like Ofelia García work in contexts like the USA and witness the problem with immigrant language being supressed. As Constant Leung discussed, “… in the United States there is a very oppressive public atmosphere at the moment. 28 of the 50 states have passed English-only legislation, […] which says all public transactions […] cannot be in any other language than English” (Frank Monaghan, 2016, 14:48-15:33). In such environment, translanguaging could be, as I acknowledged earlier, a powerful tool for affirming linguistic human rights and preserving marginalized languages.

But this raises a question: what to do in places where languages are not oppressed, where linguistic heritage is respected, and where people of different cultures, religions, and races coexist without pointing fingers at each other? In case you are wondering where it is, I want to say, from my own experience, that it’s Southeast Asia. So should we just take a system that was born from the need to revitalize minority languages and apply it in its original form worldwide?

I think, if translanguaging means to celebrate language and heritage diversity but we adopt a one-size-fits-all model and apply one set of academic rules to every classroom, we'll contradict the very principle of celebrating individual diversity. Furthermore, If we lean too much on the support of other languages and place too much emphasis on them, the target language acquisition may suffer. 

In my opinion, a better approach is to see teaching methodologies as a toolkit or a means of transportation to get learners from point A to point B. And that B could be divided into multiple smaller B's each representing a certain language skill. And as I would choose the best transport for a different destination point – driving a car to another city, but walking to the supermarket across the road – educators must select the right strategy for each specific learning objective. Translanguaging is a powerful vehicle for certain journeys but it may not be the most efficient vehicle to reach every single "Point B" in language acquisition. As educators, our role is to understand the full spectrum of approaches and wisely apply them to meet the diverse needs of our students.

As an English teacher, I have personal experience with translanguaging, even though I didn't know how to label it at the time. At the beginning of my career in China, I worked in training centers that enforced a strict "no Chinese" policy. Translation was prohibited, which I strongly disagreed with. I often had to teach grammar and concepts that were impossible to explain only in English. I could spend an hour struggling to explain something that could have been clarified in the students' first language in just a minute. Needless to say, it was stressful and frustrating for everyone. Correct answers given in Chinese were discouraged, creating the exact kind of environment that produces individuals who struggle to use English in the future.

Now, working in a kindergarten, the situation is different. I can use the phrase from the previously mentioned Guardian article to describe it: "We speak whatever language gets the job done." What is important for me is that my students feel comfortable and know they can express their thoughts and ideas in either English or Chinese. Although we have a separation of languages by time – English in the morning, Chinese in the afternoon – the students know they can use either language at any time and will not be "punished" for it. And what can I say – my students thrive. They are only four years old, but their language skills, cognitive development, and physical skills are impressive.

4. Conclusion

In the end, I think it comes down to creating a healthy environment: language is not the only prerequisite for that, but one part of a combination of factors. After learning about translanguaging and its use as a pedagogical practice, I can say that it is definitely one of the factors. By applying its fundamental principles – social justice and social practice (García & Flores, 2012) – we prepare students to be effective and empathetic communicators in a complex, multilingual world.

At the beginning, I was arguing that translanguaging was just a repackaged code-switching. I still hold that view, but I can't deny the fact that with this new name came new pedagogical methods – ones that are helping us embrace language diversity, respect linguistic heritage, revitalize minority languages, and develop new language learning strategies.

 

References:

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.

Eal_Journal. (2016, July 26). What is translanguaging? EAL Journal. https://ealjournal.org/2016/07/26/what-is-translanguaging/

Frank Monaghan. (2016, February 2). NALDIC [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIn-wAlB30E

García, O., & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232-246). Routledge.

García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. Routledge.

García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385-400.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge University Press.

Han, Y. (2015). Code-switching. In The Routledge encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., pp. 123-127).

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.

Przymus, S. D. (2023). Problematizing the theory-practice gap: How the metaphors of code-switching and translanguaging inform the pedagogical approaches of bilingual educators. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(5), 609-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2023.2170459

TedX Talks. (2013, May 3). No child left monolingual: Kim Potowski at TEDxUofIChicago [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSs1uCnLbaQ

The Guardian. (2022, September 4). Britain's multilingual children: 'We speak whatever language gets the job done'. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/sep/04/britains-multilingual-children-we-speak-whatever-language-gets-the-job-done-

 

AI tools (DeepSeek) were used for checking grammar, punctuation and the APA layout; all content was researched and composed by the author

Native Speaker Myth: My Journey Into English as a Lingua Franca

When I was learning English as a kid and a teenager, I had an idea implanted in my head that I would use it to talk to native English speakers one day. The notion of going to the USA or UK and communicating with locals seemed like the final goal of my language learning journey. Of course, this was not my own idea; it was cultivated by my English teachers and society, and it likely stemmed from Braj Kachru's (1992) model of World Englishes, where I, as a native Russian speaker, found myself in the Expanding Circle. At that time, methodologies based on Behaviourist theory were thriving, so our learning involved a lot of drilling, memorization, and a focus on grammar. My classmates and I were all trained to speak and, hopefully, sound like native English speakers (British, to be specific). This approach was probably backed by Larry Selinker's (1972) Interlanguage theory, where the ultimate goal of learning was native-like proficiency.

Long story short, after 15 years of learning English, I had no clue how to communicate. I had grammar and vocabulary, but no oral practice. Worse than that, by enforcing the idea that mistakes were bad, my English teachers instilled in me a strong fear of speaking English.

It was only after coming to China and meeting people from all over the world that I started to understand a different reality. The idea of learning English to talk to its native speakers was an illusion; real-world communication is quite different from the models presented in the classroom. As Graddol (1999) predicted, "in future [English] will be a language used mainly in multilingual contexts as a second language and for communication between non-native speakers" (p. 57), and that prediction has already become a fact.

So there I was a few years ago, surrounded by non-native English speakers, and we all used English to communicate with each other. I noticed that the main focus was on communication and the ability to express thoughts and ideas in a way that was understandable to everyone in that specific situation. People made mistakes, sometimes did not follow standard sentence structures, and omitted some "unnecessary" words, but it was not a problem. According to Jenkins (2000), we were all capable users of English as a lingua franca – we were accommodating our English to each specific situation and group involved in the conversation.

Interestingly enough, after years of speaking English and achieving a high level of fluency, I still feel uncomfortable talking to native English speakers. In my opinion, the main reason is a mental block, triggered by the fear of being inaccurate in conversation with a native speaker – the ultimate goal of my learning path, the benchmark against which I should compare myself. It is the fear that I will inevitably make a mistake and be judged and deemed a failure.

Another reason is that it seems harder to talk to native speakers, as they often do not know how to accommodate their language when talking to non-natives. As House (2003) noted, the only cases of miscommunication or misunderstanding she observed in her research were those involving monolingual English speakers. As Canagarajah (2007) summarized, "this miscommunication in native-nonnative talk is easy to explain, as NSs would fail to negotiate, treating their norms as universally applicable" (p. 929).

And I do not blame them. As a native Russian speaker, I do not have a good understanding of how to accommodate the Russian language – I did not learn it the way I learned English, so I cannot easily grade Russian words by difficulty or determine which grammar structure is easier for a learner to understand. To put it simply, I do not know the vocabulary that another person possesses. I have a friend from Sweden who is a polyglot. When I first met him, he told me he could speak Russian. My reaction was, "Russian is too complicated, so let's just speak English". I did not want to go through the mental exercise of grading my mother tongue to his level. When he insisted on speaking Russian, what did I do? I started talking to him as if he were a disabled person – slowly, enunciating every single word. Luckily for me, his mother's first language is Russian, so it turned out he could speak fluently. But that brief moment made me realize what native English speakers (primarily monolingual ones) go through and the challenges they face when talking to others.

As we see English as a lingua franca grow in popularity and observe the communication strategies people use, we can ask ourselves an important question: should it be a teaching model in the language classroom? The answer probably depends on whether ELF is considered a variety of English that can be taught in the same way as American or British English.

As Sandra Mollin (2006) concludes in her paper, "ELF is no structurally coherent variety as Old and New Englishes are" (p. 52). Simply put, it is not a variety but a register – a style of language suited to a specific situation. There is no set vocabulary or grammar to be taught for ELF. This begs the question: what implications does this have for language acquisition in the modern landscape?

We still live in a world with standardized English tests where the "native speaker" is a benchmark against which learners are measured; native-speaker standards will likely remain a reference point for formal education and assessment. However, we must consider that the goal of learning English is shifting towards communicative competence. A learner who can communicate effectively is now seen as more successful than one who knows all the grammar rules but cannot form a sentence. This means, according to Canagarajah (2007), that we should be teaching communication strategies – how to paraphrase, ask for clarification, use gestures, and build intercultural awareness. I believe our focus as educators should be on creating a safe environment where students can practice English without fear of making a mistake.

 

References:

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 921-937.

Graddol, D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker. AILA Review, 13, 57–68.

House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–578.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 48-74). University of Illinois Press.

Mollin, S. (2006). English as a Lingua Franca: A New Variety in the New Expanding Circle? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 41-57.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209–232.

AI tools (DeepSeek) were used for checking grammar, punctuation and the APA layout; all content was researched and composed by the author

Beyond the “Native Speaker” Ideal of Interlanguage Theory

As a learner of English myself, I have always been intrigued by how we learn languages, and learning about various theories has been an interesting journey that prompted me to reflect on my personal path of acquiring English.

Recently, I encountered a particularly fascinating theory: The Interlanguage theory, introduced by Larry Selinker (1972). One of its main concepts is fossilization – getting permanently stuck at a certain level – and according to Selinker (1972), about 95% of learners experience it.

Learning this fact created a sense of contradiction in my mind. If the theory’s key concept is achieving native-like proficiency, doesn’t it create a paradox? That Selinker defined success by a goal that most people would never be able to achieve?

It is as if he was saying that we all need to get from point A (our first language) to point B (our target language), but specific cognitive mechanisms will most likely stop us from arriving. Framed this way, the theory sounds demoralizing, labelling 95% of learners as unsuccessful while cherishing the “native speaker” as the ultimate goal – a concept later critically named the “Native Speaker Fallacy” (Phillipson, 1992).

Modern critique of Interlanguage theory focuses exactly on this: that the “native speaker” was chosen as the final goal, and that this is prejudiced, as it ignores the unique strengths of bilinguals and multilinguals.

But then I started thinking: was Selinker the one who actually set that goal?

Back in the 1970s, the primary motivation for learning English was often to achieve a level of mastery as close to a native speaker's as possible. Perhaps Selinker was simply describing what he observed, and setting that goal was not his personal invention but a reflection of the ambitions of thousands of learners. The native speaker was a stable, observable benchmark against which progress could be measured.

We can still debate the reasons for choosing the native speaker as the destination of the learning journey and all the implications this has for the theory and future research in language acquisition. However, we cannot deny that Interlanguage theory was the first to document the psychological processes that occur in the learner’s mind, which on one hand help them move toward their goal, and on the other, prevent them from fully reaching it (Selinker, 1972).

Even criticizing this theory eventually forced researchers to seek alternatives, which in turn helped new concepts emerge, such as English as a Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2000) and communicative effectiveness.

I think if we shift our focus from the goal of Interlanguage theory and its emphasis on “nativeness”, we can see the beauty in how this theory describes the unique journey every learner undergoes while creating a complex, functional, and entirely their own language system.

 

References:

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209–232.

 

AI tools (DeepSeek) were used for checking grammar, punctuation and creating the APA layout; all content was researched and composed by the author.

When 'Hello' Isn't Speaking: The Myth of Instant Language Acquisition

In my first years as a teacher in China, I worked in three different training centers. A common practice to attract new clients was to give a demo lesson. This involved kids – mostly without any prior language learning experience – being put in front of an English teacher who would try to teach them some language in about 15 to 20 minutes, usually starting with a song as a warm-up and then using flashcards. Those kids were usually kindergarten age, by the way.

That teaching approach was mostly based on the behaviorist theory (Skinner, 1957) and included drilling and memorization of three or four words. The expected outcome was that kids would start "speaking" English almost immediately. From the first minute, they were expected to say "Hello!" after a random foreign face stared at them for a few seconds and asked them to repeat it several times.

What can I say about it? I think you could guess that the outcome was obvious – almost no one could say anything. Most of the kids were crying; some were forced by their parents to at least imitate the dancing involved in the warm-up. A few kids tried to follow the teacher, but I could see how uncomfortable and forced they were. Of course, there were some kids who could say "hello" and repeat some of the introduced words, and their parents were thrilled. Those kids who didn't do anything were silently labelled as doomed by their parents, who assumed their ability to learn English was nearly zero.

I wish that at that time, someone could have explained to those parents what I now know about language acquisition: that learners often go through a silent period and require a lot of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982); that putting them in a new environment and forcing them to follow a complete stranger and speak what probably sounds like gibberish to them is highly stressful and raises the "affective filter," which blocks acquisition (Krashen, 1982); and that output needs to be meaningful – simply repeating words without understanding is not genuine speaking (Kaufmann, 2013).

It is sad to see that, even today with all the research in language acquisition, many institutions still fail to create a healthy environment for language learners. Instead, they present a broken model that does not facilitate real language acquisition from the moment a student steps into a school.

 

References:

Kaufmann, S. (2013). The linguist: A personal guide to language learning. Lingosteve.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 

AI tools (DeepSeek) were used for checking grammar, punctuation and the APA layout; all content was researched and composed by the author